Northern Ireland Office: Questions for Written Answer

Lord Laird: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps the Northern Ireland office proposes to improve the quality and speed of answers to House of Lords Questions for Written Answer; and
	When they will respond to the Question for Written Answer tabled on 10 September (HL4194) concerning the time taken to answer Questions.

Baroness Amos: The Northern Ireland Office does its utmost to provide prompt and accurate answers to Written Questions. Unfortunately some delays have occurred largely because of the detailed nature and volume of questions received. Where relevant information has been overlooked or errors occur, the department takes immediate action to clarify the position.
	I can assure the noble Lord that the Northern Ireland Office will continue to strive to answer all questions as quickly and fully as possible.

Democratic Republic of Congo: MONUC Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action the United Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) will take to investigate allegations of sexual violence detailed in the Amnesty International report Democratic Republic of Congo: Mass rape—time for remedies of 26 October, including the allegations against MONUC personnel referred to by the United Nations Secretary-General in his report to the Security Council of 16 August.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: In United Nations Security Council Resolution 1565, adopted on 1 October, the Security Council expressed its grave concern at the allegations of sexual exploitation and misconduct by civilian and military personnel of MONUC, and requested the Secretary-General to continue fully to investigate allegations and to take appropriate action in accordance with the Secretary-General's bulletin on special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse.
	The resolution further encourages MONUC to conduct training for personnel aimed at ensuring full compliance with its code of conduct on sexual misconduct.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there are any plans to review the future work of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The future work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is set out in its completion strategy, on which the ICTY reports at six monthly intervals to the United Nations Security Council. The next report is expected later this month when there will be a discussion of the future work of the ICTY.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received from the United States Administration regarding the future of the International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The United States has made no direct representations to the United Kingdom regarding the future of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). However, we regularly discuss the ICTY with the US in the Security Council and other bilateral and multilateral fora.
	The ICTY has an agreed completion strategy on which it reports regularly to the United Nations Security Council.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Non-EU Countries under EUFOR and NATO

Lord Astor of Hever: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the European Union takeover of the SFOR operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which non-European Union countries will continue to have a presence in Bosnia-Herzegovina after 2 December.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: According to current plans, the non-European Union countries that will continue to have a presence under EUFOR In Bosnia and Herzegovina after 2 December are Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Romania, Switzerland and Turkey. The non-European Union countries that will continue to have a presence under NATO are the United States, Canada, Romania, Argentina, Turkey and Norway.

Guantanamo Bay: Detainees

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are under a duty to protect the interests of those who are former British residents and are now detained by the United States Government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and, if so, whether the duty is affected if those detained had refugee status in the United Kingdom and had not intended to leave this country permanently.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The British Government are not in a position to provide consular or diplomatic assistance to those detainees in Guantanamo Bay who are not British nationals, including those who hold refugee status and are, or were, resident in the United Kingdom.

Guantanamo Bay: Detainees

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made representations to the United States Government in respect of the cases of Mr Bisher al-Rawi and Mr Jamil el-Banna; and, if so, what information about these cases they have asked the United States to take into account.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna are not British nationals. The British Government are therefore not in a position to provide them with consular or diplomatic assistance or to seek to make representations to the US Government on their behalf.

Guantanamo Bay: Detainees

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will seek to prevent the deportation of Mr Bisher al-Rawi to Iraq and Mr Jamil el-Banna to Jordan on the humanitarian grounds that their families are resident in Britain and that the men themselves might be at risk of death or torture if they were to be deported.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Bisher al-Rawi and Jamil el-Banna are not British nationals. The decision on whether they will be released from Guantanamo Bay, and if so to which country they may be returned, is a matter for the US Government.

UN Convention Against Torture

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they have taken to fulfil the obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom as a party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) and, in particular, to comply with Article 15 of the convention by ensuring that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Details of the Government's actions to fulfil the United Kingdom's obligations under the convention are given in the United Kingdom's 4th Periodic Report under the convention, which was submitted to the United Nations in November 2003. The report can be accessed at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/ff12cfd554742700c1256edf00559e29?Opendocument.
	The Government unreservedly condemn the use of torture and have made it an important part of their foreign policy to pursue its eradication worldwide. The Government are not aware of any proceedings in a UK court in which any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture has been invoked as evidence, except against a person accused of torture.

House Prices

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the average price of a dwelling in each of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole, in (a) 1984; (b) 1993; (c) 1997; and (d) 2003.

Lord Rooker: The average dwelling prices are tabled below:
	
		£
		
			 Year 1984 1993 1997 2003 
			 United Kingdom 29,106 64,239 77,531 155,485  
			 England 29,881 65,718 79,814 165,834 
			 Wales 23,665 53,588 60,494 104,140 
			 Scotland 25,865 59,098 65,973 92,006 
			 Northern Ireland 21,455 42,213 58,300 102,348  
			 Government Office 
			 Regions 
			 North East 22,524 51,569 56,503 94,590 
			 North West 24,333 55,641 63,077 108,956 
			 Yorkshire & the Humber 22,356 55,325 60,874 107,325 
			 East Midlands 24,377 54,540 62,656 133,215 
			 West Midlands 24,989 60,032 69,598 132,898 
			 East 32,971 67,463 84,306 181,494 
			 London 39,346 83,109 107,968 236,476 
			 South East 37,967 77,798 98,329 213,115 
			 South West 30,612 61,714 75,064 170,560 
		
	
	Source:
	Building Societies Mortgages/Survey of Mortgage Lenders
	Notes:
	1. The data for 1984 are calculated as simple averages derived from the 5 per cent sample survey of Building Societies Mortgages (BSM).
	2. The data for 1993 and 1997 are calculated as mix-adjusted averages derived from the 5 per cent sample survey of all mortgage lenders (the Survey of Mortgage Lenders (SML)), except for the north-west. At the time, the north-west and Merseyside were separate Government Office Regions and the mix-adjusted averages were calculated on this basis. We are only able to produce simple averages for a combined north-west and Merseyside region for 1993 and 1997.
	3. The data for 2003 are calculated as mix-adjusted averages derived from a significantly enhanced sample of all mortgage lenders (SML) for all countries and regions.

House Prices

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the estimated average price paid for a dwelling by first-time buyers for each of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole, in (a) 1984; (b) 1993; (c) 1997; and (d) 2003.

Lord Rooker: The average dwelling prices paid by first time buyers are tabled below:
	
		£
		
			 Year 1984 1993 1997 2003 
			 United Kingdom 22,174 50,694 57,100 118,794  
			 England 22,784 51,814 58,391 126,045 
			 Wales 18,707 41,769 46,592 83,915 
			 Scotland 19,792 46,666 50,488 73,272 
			 Northern Ireland 17,618 36,036 48,416 85,513  
			 Government Office 
			 Regions 
			 North East 17,009 40,901 42,904 75,693 
			 North West 18,300 42,962 44,741 84,054 
			 Yorkshire & the Humber 17,253 43,111 45,173 82,146 
			 East Midlands 18,135 43,045 46,304 99,461 
			 West Midlands 18,429 46,132 49,842 99,084 
			 East 24,874 52,031 61,270 134,545  
			 London 32,635 68,072 79,403 187,083 
			 South East 27,522 59,165 69,984 154,084 
			 South West 23,633 48,996 57,883 130,311 
		
	
	Source:
	Building Societies Mortgages/Survey of Mortgage Lenders
	Notes:
	1. The data for 1984 are calculated as simple averages derived from the 5 per cent sample survey of Building Societies Mortgages (BSM).
	2. The data for 1993 and 1997 are calculated as mix-adjusted averages derived from the 5 per cent sample survey of all mortgage lenders (the Survey of Mortgage Lenders (SML)), except for the north-west. At the time, the north-west and Merseyside were separate Government Office Regions and the mix-adjusted averages were calculated on this basis. We are only able to produce simple averages for a combined north-west and Merseyside region for 1993 and 1997.
	3. The data for 2003 are calculated as mix-adjusted averages derived from a significantly enhanced sample of all mortgage lenders (SML) for all countries and regions.

Right of Petition: UN Conventions

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Ashton of Upholland on 25 October (WA 108), why they decided not to accede to the right of individual petition for members of ethnic minorities under the United Nations Convention for the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As I explained in my Answers to the noble Lord on 16 September (WA 201), and on 25 October (WA 108), the Government believe that the practical value to UK citizens of individual petition to the United Nations is unclear. They also have concerns about the levels of cost to public funds if individual petition were used extensively to explore the meaning of the provisions of a treaty. However, they wish to consider the merits of individual petition on a more empirical basis and, to enable them to do that, they have decided to accede to the right of individual petition under the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

War Pensions

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What research they have undertaken or commissioned on alleged abuse of the war pensions scheme arising from placing the burden of proof for entitlement on the Ministry of Defence, leaving the claimant only needing to raise a "reasonable doubt"; and what figures they have on the prevalence of such abuse in each of the past five years.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence deals with a small number of claims that are made fraudulently or in error, but these are not the principal issue in this case. The question is whether it is right to pay awards where service is unlikely to have been the cause of death or injury and whether these resources would not be better used to improve the level of awards to the more seriously disabled who are not well served by current arrangements.
	For claims made within seven years of leaving service, war pension legislation provides that there is no burden on the claimant to prove that service caused the injury or death in question and that he receives the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The claimant himself is not required to raise that doubt. For claims made more than seven years after leaving service, the burden is on the claimant, but only to the extent that he has to raise a reasonable doubt.
	It is inevitable therefore, given the eligibility criteria, that war pensions will be awarded where it is unlikely—and in some cases highly unlikely—that the injury or death was caused by service. No figures are kept on the number of war pension claims which succeed because of the preferential burden of proof, though the recent analysis of the effect of the amendment to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill proposed by the noble Lord gives our estimate of the effect of changing burden and standard of proof for the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. I am placing a copy of this in the Library of the House.

War Pensions

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What evidence the Ministry of Defence estimates that the cost to the department of abandoning the proposals to transfer the burden of proof in respect of war pension claims from the Ministry of Defence to the claimant, and to substitute "balance of probabilities" for "reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof in deciding claims, could be up to £200 million.

Lord Bach: Based on assumptions provided by the Ministry of Defence on the effect of deciding all compensation claims under the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme on the basis of the war pension scheme burden and standard of proof, the Government Actuary's Department has estimated the additional cost at over £300 million over a 10-year period. I am arranging to place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses. The MoD is confident that the assumptions are a fair and realistic assessment of the effect that such a change will have on the number and levels of awards.

Water Purification Units

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many water purification units are held by the Ministry of Defence; and in which years they were manufactured.

Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence holds 182 portable water purification units which were manufactured between 1984 and 2003. In addition we have acquired and installed five static reverse osmosis purification units in support of the United Kingdom forces deployed on operations.

Cadet Forces: Funding

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What grants are given to (a) sea cadets; (b) the Combined Cadet Force; and (c) the equivalent organisations in the other services; whether such grants are balanced amongst the three services; whether they are satisfied that the grants represent value for money; and whether any stipulation to the issuing of grants applies to the recruitment of young people, broken down by sex; ethnic origin; and by type of education (whether at state and public schools).

Lord Bach: The cadet forces are voluntary, community-based organisations promoting the personal and social development of young people. The focus is on bringing adventure and enjoyment, with a view to steering the cadets towards responsible citizenship. Funding is not linked to sex, ethnic origin or type of education as one of the main keystones of the cadet forces is social inclusion. The MoD funding made available for the financial year 2003–04 is as follows:
	Sea Cadet Corps (SCC)—£8 million–£9 million. Funding is also provided by the Sea Cadet Association (SCA).
	Army Cadet Force—£40 million. Some additional activities are funded by charity.
	Air Training Corps—£21 million. Again, some additional activities are funded by charity.
	Combined Cadet Force (CCF)—Each CCF is essentially a partnership between the individual school and the Ministry of Defence. The MoD, through the single services, contributed in the region of £15 million in FY 2003–04 to the CCF. In addition, the CCF benefits from the infrastructure established to support the other cadet forces. In many cases schools also provide additional funding.
	The fact that cadet force funding has passed spending scrutiny year on year indicates that we believe these youth activities are of considerable value to both the Armed Forces and to society as a whole.

Olympic Sports: Funding

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What level of funding has been provided to British Olympic sports per annum on a sport-by-sport basis since the Sydney 2000 Olympics.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The following table is a summary of the funds UK Sport has released to the UK/GB National Governing Bodies of summer Olympic sports since April 2001.
	
		
			  2001–02 (£) 2002–03 (£) 2003–04 (£) 2004–05 (£) Total (£) 
			 Athletics 2,069,059 2,233,324 1,905,120 2,069,385 8,276,888 
			 Cycling 1 2,113,097 1,306,225 1,628,465 1,872,795 6,920,582 
			 Rowing 1,893,200 1,666,990 1,821,984 1,906,687 7,288,861 
			 Sailing 1 1,566,500 1,288,166 1,987,417 817,917 5,660,000 
			 Canoe/kayak 826,557 855,199 875,467 892,777 3,450,000 
			 Equestrian 1 825,000 977,684 911,150 800,500 3,514,334 
			 Judo 1 795,000 820,000 845,000 820,000 3,280,000 
			 Aquatics–Diving 230,000 227,000 250,662 213,838 921,500 
			 Aquatics–Swimming 1,235,000 1,192,267 1,230,000 1,262,733 4,920,000 
			 Gymnastics–Artistic 358,617 1,015,873 1,071,782 1,027,513 3,473,785 
			 Gymnastics–Rhythmic 0 25,090 31,800 25,900 82,790 
			 Gymnastics–Trampolining 2 150,565 5,000 0 0 155,565 
			 Triathlon 429,510 429,300 595,281 391,401 1,845,492 
			 Modern Pentathlon 350,000 364,000 444,071 395,009 1,553,080 
			 Target Shooting 215,791 359,279 295,000 209,930 1,080,000 
			 Archery 1 60,000 82,225 120,000 157,775 420,000 
			 Taekwondo 0 121,231 150,000 148,769 420,000 
			 Weightlifting 0 0 20,000 25,000 45,000 
			 Home Country Based Sport  
			 Badminton 62,500 62,500 83,600 82,500 291,100 
		
	
	1 These sports have an integrated World Class Performance Programme combining both Olympic and Paralympic programmes. A proportion of their funding is therefore directed to their Paralympic activities which has been included in the above figures.
	2 Funding to trampolining was incorporated into Gymnastic–Artistic award from 2003–04 onwards.
	3 The information is based on money released from UK Sport in each financial year. For 2004–05 an estimate has been made on the amount of money likely to be released to the respective sports based on individual cash flows and does not reflect final position.

UK Sport

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's press release of 26 August 2003, what are the "appropriate safeguards which have been put in place to ensure there is no conflict of interest" between the role of the interim Chair of UK Sport, and her advisory role to government on school sport initiatives and policies.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government do not believe that there is a conflict of interest.
	Nevertheless, as required by the Cabinet Office code of practice for board members, all non-departmental public bodies, including UK Sport, should have in place proper procedures for dealing with conflicts of interest with chair and board member personal, business or other interests as well as the interests of close family members, which may arise out of carrying out board responsibilities.
	These rules include a requirement for declaring, and if necessary resolving, any potential personal or business conflicts of interests in relation to the work of the public body concerned.
	A register of members' interests appropriate to the body's activities should be kept up to date. The register should, as a minimum, list direct or indirect pecuniary interests that members of the public might reasonably think could influence board members' judgment. Board members are strongly encouraged to register non-pecuniary interests that relate closely to the body's activities, and interests of close family members and persons living in the same household as the board member.
	Board members should declare at board meetings any interest that relates specifically to a particular issue under consideration, for recording in the minutes. Board members should not participate in the discussion or determination of matters in which they have an interest, and should normally withdraw from the meeting if their interest is direct and pecuniary, or if their interest is covered in specific guidance issued by the body or the sponsoring department which requires them not to participate or to withdraw from the meeting.
	These controls are effectively operated at UK Sport. All board members, including Sue Campbell as chair, are required to complete and maintain a declaration of interest's statement. UK Sport also maintains a related party transactions register that is published with the annual accounts.

UK Sport

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether it is their intention to continue to allocate 9.2 per cent of sports lottery funds to UK Sport for world class funding; and whether, in the event of future reductions in lottery funding, they will continue the policy of making up shortfalls through requests to the Home Country Sports Councils.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have no plans to alter the current allocation of 9.2 per cent of the sports lottery fund to UK Sport for the remaining period of the existing National Lottery licence. UK Sport has produced its business plan for 2005–09 on the basis of the known estimates of lottery income and no shortfall is anticipated. There is therefore currently no intention to ask the Home Country Sports Councils to meet any shortfall.

UK Sport

Lord Moynihan: asked her Majesty's Government:
	How much of UK Sport's modernisation budget was transferred over the last five years to support the World Class Programme.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The total transferred over the past five years is £4.5 million.

UK Sport

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many tests for erythropoietin (EPO) were carried out by UK Sport's Drug Free Directorate in each of the last three years; and how many are planned for each of the next three years.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the last three years the number of bodily samples analysed for EPO, as part of the UK's anti-doping testing programme, is 111 to date. Of these 111 tests, 46 were analysed for EPO in 2002, 29 in 2003, and so far in 2004 36 tests have been analysed.
	In line with other leading national anti-doping organisations, UK Sport has undertaken limited EPO testing in the past, primarily because of the high cost involved. UK Sport is looking at ways in which the level of EPO testing can be made more cost effective and thereby significantly increase the number of EPO tests undertaken in the future, focusing on those sports particularly at risk.

UK Sport

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will meet any third party claims for compensation arising out of a faulty drug test carried out by UK Sport; or whether the national governing body will remain responsible.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Where UK Sport is legally obliged to pay compensation, responsibility for paying that compensation lies with UK Sport and not with the relevant national governing body.

UK Sport

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 22 July (WA 82), whether the United Kingdom is now fully compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code; if not, in what areas it is not compliant; and what changes have been made to comply with the code.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) originally set the start of the Athens Olympic Games (13 August) for the national anti-doping organisations and sport to bring out full compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code. WADA has since recognised that several complex issues need addressing in order for the code to be properly implemented, and as a result WADA has extended the timetable for full compliance.
	The UK's national anti-doping organisation, UK Sport, is currently concluding the consultation exercise for the new National Anti-Doping Policy that began earlier in July. UK Sport intends to publish the policy in January 2005 alongside a set of model rules that will help sport's governing bodies incorporate the code into their rules and regulations.
	WADA is content with the progress that UK Sport is making.

Information Technology Projects: Oversight

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there is a case for increased oversight and scrutiny of government information technology projects, in particular reference projects subject to significant variations in the original contract or price.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Government recognise the importance of effective oversight and scrutiny of information technology projects, and have introduced a range of measures consistently reinforcing this principle.
	These include the OGC Gateway Review process, the Embedding Centres of Excellence Programme, Mission Critical reporting, the establishment of a ministerial committee on electronic service delivery and the mandatory application of the NAO/OGC list of common causes of project failure to major acquisition-based projects.
	There is on-going oversight and scrutiny of all major government IT projects, underpinned by expert support and assurance as required.

Information Technology Projects: Oversight

The Earl of Northesk: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether adequate controls are in place to guarantee proper accountability and transparency in the procurement and management of government information technology projects.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The accountability of Government IT projects is, in the first instance, determined by internal departmental controls.
	Externally, the National Audit Office independently undertakes additional assurance, through its value for money work, to determine the degree to which IT and non-IT projects have met and/or are meeting stated aims within specified efficiency and effectiveness criteria. The NAO's reports and recommendations are publicly available.
	The Government believe that these measures are adequate to guarantee proper accountability and transparency in the procurement and management of information technology projects.

Productivity

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 20 October (WA 84), whether the production by the Office for National Statistics of estimates of output per hour worked for both the private and public sectors in the United Kingdom will help understanding of the international comparisons of whole economy output per hour, currently being published on an experimental basis.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
	Letter from the National Statistician, Len Cook, to the Lord Patten, dated 8 November 2004.
	As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on international comparisons of output per hour worked. (HL4669)
	For Office for National Statistics (ONS) international comparisons of productivity (ICP), individual countries' national gross domestic product at current prices are converted into comparable volume measures using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) current purchasing power parities (PPPs) to remove cross-country price differentials. Any further details such as estimates of hourly productivity for different sectors could be used to help our understanding of national relative productivity positions, but there remain some particular measurement and data difficulties so that ONS does not currently publish such detail.
	Some countries publish productivity measures for their business sector or marketed economy (eg the US and Canada). It is common to focus on parts of the economy because the economy is considered to be measured more accurately at an individual sector level. Historically, the UK has focussed more on industry detail, rather than institutional sectors, and headline UK measures highlight the production industries where there is a long series of consistent output and labour series forming the basis for productivity measures.
	On public sector productivity, we have asked Sir Tony Atkinson, Warden of Nuffield College, Oxford, to carry out a review of "Measurement of Government Output and Productivity for the National Accounts". Sir Tony published an interim report in July 2004, and his final report is due in January 2005. Once I have considered Sir Tony's final report, it will be for me to decide what changes to make to statistics produced by ONS.
	On the employment side, ONS publishes public sector employment statistics (with the next set of figures due to be released during November). ONS is also leading a programme of work to improve the quality of these statistics in collaboration with government departments.

Sport England Underspend: Community Club Development Programme

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What was the reason for the £18,203,000 underspend by Sport England identified within the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Resource Accounts 2003–04.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The underspend relates to the Community Club Development Programme. As this is a capital programme, although the £20 million funding in 2003–04 was fully committed to recipients during the 2003–04 financial year, it will be drawn down as recipients need it. The balance of the money is expected to be distributed during this financial year.

Common Fisheries Policy

Lord Mason of Barnsley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 20 November 2003 (WA 363–64), what progress has been made in satisfying the European Commission against its charges of the United Kingdom's failings on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy.

Lord Whitty: A formal response was sent to the Commission in January 2004 which set out the controls already in place in the UK Fisheries Departments and the steps that are to be taken during 2004 and 2005 to strengthen existing arrangements in order to ensure that the UK fully met the obligations that arise from the CFP.
	The opinion of the infraction chefs is still awaited.

Badgers

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether any record is kept of the number of badgers killed on British roads; and whether they consider that badgers are a danger to road safety and, potentially, to the occupants of vehicles.

Lord Whitty: The Government do not keep a record of the numbers of badgers killed on British roads. Badgers are not considered a general danger to road safety or the occupants of vehicles, although, as with any medium or larger-sized animal, there is always the potential for adverse consequences for occupants if a vehicle collides with or swerves to avoid such an animal.